¶1A History of Transhumanist Thought
¶2Nick Bostrom Oxford University www.nickbostrom.com
¶3Originally published in Journal of Evolution and Technology ‐ Vol. 14 Issue 1 ‐ April 2005; reprinted (in its present slightly edited form) in Academic Writing Across the Disciplines , eds. Michael Rectenwald & Lisa Carl (New York: Pearson Longman, 2011)
¶6The human desire to acquire new capacities is as ancient as our species itself. We have always sought to expand the boundaries of our existence, be it socially, geographically, or mentally. There is a tendency in at least some individuals always to search for a way around every obstacle and limitation to human life and happiness.
¶12The Age of Enlightenment is often said to have started with the publication of Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum , “the new tool” (1620), which proposes a scientific methodology based on empirical investigation rather than a‐priori reasoning. 4 Bacon advocated the project of “effecting all things possible,” by which he meant using science to achieve mastery over nature in order to improve the living condition of human beings. The heritage from the Renaissance combines with the influence of Isaac Newton, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, the Marquis de Condorcet, and others to form the basis for rational humanism, which emphasizes empirical science and critical reason – rather than revelation and religious authority – as ways of learning about the natural world and our place within it and of providing a grounding for morality. Transhumanism has roots in rational humanism.
¶22What Nietzsche had in mind, however, was not technological transformation but a kind of soaring personal growth and cultural refinement in exceptional individuals (who he thought would have to overcome the life‐sapping “slave‐morality” of Christianity). Despite some surface‐level similarities with the Nietzschean vision, transhumanism – with its Enlightenment roots, its emphasis on individual liberties, and its humanistic concern for the welfare of all humans (and other sentient beings) – probably has as much or more in common with Nietzsche’s contemporary the English liberal thinker and utilitarian John Stuart Mill.
¶26Haldane’s essay became a bestseller and set off a chain of future‐oriented discussions, including The World, the Flesh and the Devil, by J. D. Bernal (1929) 12 , which speculated about space colonization and bionic implants as well as mental improvements arising from advanced social science and psychology; the works of Olaf Stapledon, a philosopher and science fiction author; and the essay “Icarus: the Future of Science” (1924) by Bertrand Russell. 13 Russell took a more pessimistic view, arguing that without more kindliness in the world, technological power would mainly serve to increase our ability to harm one another. Science fiction authors such as H. G. Wells and Stapledon got many people thinking about the future evolution of the human race.
¶31The word “transhumanism” appears to have been first used by Aldous Huxley’s brother, Julian Huxley, a distinguished biologist (who was also the first director‐general of UNESCO and a founder of the World Wildlife Fund). In New Bottles for New Wine (1957), he wrote:
¶32The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself – not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way – but in its entirety, as humanity. We need a name for this new belief. Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature. 17
¶43Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended. 24
¶45The singularity idea also comes in a somewhat different eschatological version, which traces its lineage to the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a paleontologist and Jesuit theologian who saw an evolutionary telos in the development of an encompassing noosphere (a global consciousness) – via physicist Frank Tipler, who argued that advanced civilizations might come to have a defining influence on the future evolution of the cosmos, and, in the final moments of the Big Crunch, might manage to extract an infinite number of computations by harnessing the sheer energy of the collapsing matter. 25 26 However, while these ideas might appeal to those who fancy a marriage between mysticism and science, they have not caught on either among transhumanists or the larger scientific community. Current cosmological theories indicate that the universe will continue to expand forever (falsifying Tipler’s prediction). But the more general point that the transhumanist might make in this context is that we need to learn to think about “big‐picture questions” without resorting to wishful thinking or mysticism. Big‐picture questions, including ones about our place in the world and the long‐term fate of intelligent life are part of transhumanism; however, these questions should be addressed in a sober, disinterested way, using critical reason and our best available scientific evidence. One reason why such questions are of transhumanist interest is that their answers might affect what outcomes we should expect from our own technological development, and therefore – indirectly – what policies it makes sense for humanity to pursue.
¶58In a later work, Man into Superman (1972), Ettinger discussed a number of conceivable technological improvements of the human organism, continuing the tradition started by Haldane and Bernal. 34
¶105There are other commonalities between bioconservatives and transhumanists. Both agree that we face a realistic prospect that technology could be used to substantially transform the human condition in this century. Both agree that this imposes an obligation on the current generation to think hard about the practical and ethical implications. Both are concerned with medical risks of side‐effects, of course, although bioconservatives are more worried that the technology might succeed than that it might fail. Both camps agree that technology in general and medicine in particular have a legitimate role to play, although bioconservatives tend to oppose many uses of medicine that go beyond therapy to enhancement. Both sides condemn the racist and coercive state‐sponsored eugenics programs of the 20th century. Bioconservatives draw attention to the possibility that subtle human values could be eroded by technological advances, and transhumanists should perhaps learn to be more sensitive to these concerns. On the other hand, transhumanists emphasize the enormous potential for genuine improvements in human well‐being and human flourishing that are attainable only via technological transformation, and bioconservatives could try to be more appreciative of the possibility that we could realize great values by venturing beyond our current biological limitations. 77
¶109We believe that humanity’s potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions.